Other articles from this issue | Version in English | Version in French
Catechism of the Catholic Church - an Interfaith Jewish Reading
Leon Klenicki
Introduction
The Catechism of the Catholic Church (CCC) was issued officially in its French translation on November 15 1992 in Paris. Bishop Edward T. Hughes of Metuchen, New Jersey, in his report to the American Bishops on the new Catechism said, "The Catechism of the Catholic Church is intended primarily for bishops, as teachers of the faith and pastors of the Church. It is offered as an instrument for their use in teaching the people of God. Through the bishops, this Catechism is addressed to editors of Catechisms, priests, catechists, and all others responsible for Catechesis. It will be useful reading for all the faithful".
The new Catechism (which may be called a "content guide" for the development of local Catechisms) is an effort to set Catholic thinking, especially Vatican II teachings, into a manual that will influence the education of future generations of Catholics. Archbishop William Levada, of Portland, Oregon, said that the proposed Catechism "would shape the mind of the Church for decades, perhaps centuries to come". In his address to a symposium of Catechetical publishers in Washington D.C., February 21 1990, he pointed out that the CCC "is not intended as the only worldwide Catechism; it is a resource that will be used as a point of reference by which any Catechetical material can be judged for the soundness of its approach... at the same time, I want to say that this Catechism... will serve as a major resource-even the text-in the preparation of ministers-from priests to catechists-who will be called to hand on the faith...".
The centrality of catechetical teaching has been a concern of the Catholic Church for centuries, just as teaching religious tradition is for any faith commitment (and very specially for Judaism). Pope John Paul II, in his apostolic exhortation Catechesi Tradendae "Catechesis in Our Time", said,
The Church has always considered Catechesis one of her primary tasks, for, before Christ ascended to His Father after His resurrection, He gave the Apostles a final command - to make disciples of all nations and to teach them to observe all that He had commanded. He thus entrusted them with a mission and power to proclaim to humanity what they had heard, what they had seen with their eyes, what they had looked upon and touched with their hands, concerning the Word of Life. He also entrusted them with the mission and power to explain with authority what He had taught them, His words and actions, His signs and commandments. And He gave them the spirit to fulfil this mission.
Very soon the name of Catechesis was given to the whole of the efforts within the Church to make disciples, to help people believe that Jesus is the Son of God, so that believing they might have life in his name, and to educate and instruct them in this life and thus build up the Body of Christ. The Church has not ceased to devote her energy to this task.
Catechetical teaching is central in Catholicism, thereby acquiring special significance for non-Christians and especially for Jews. Christianity is closely related to first century Judaism. The Church's presentation of the complex society of that time might be taken in a negative way conducive to prejudice and contempt for the Jews and Judaism. This has been the tradition of centuries of Christian teaching that contemporary interfaith dialogue is overcoming, exploring God's call to mutual recognition.
An Interfaith Reading of the Document
The Catechism of the Catholic Church is a Catholic document, written by Catholic specialists and directed to Catholics. Our Jewish approach is respectful of its theological ideas and sensitive to differences..Our comments are given in a spirit rooted in dialogue as well as in an understandable concern about the CCC's presentation of Jews and Judaism.
Until the Second Vatican Council, there was a long-standing tradition of contempt toward Judaism at many levels of Catholic education. While that negative portrait has been rejected by Vatican II teaching, aspects of it are still present in some textbooks and even in some ecclesiastical documents. Dialogue, joint reflection and mutual recognition are part of a slow process of encounter and mutual acceptance. The present reading intends to contribute to this hope-filled process under God's guidance.
A change of religious attitudes entails the recognition of the other person as a person of faith, a person of God. It is to see the other not as an object but rather as a subject of faith. It is an approach related to understanding the other beyond triumphalism. God's Presence must be accepted as part of this recognition of the other in order to comprehend the sacredness of the other person and God's covenant in the other's divine experience. This spirit was present in the Vatican Guidelines and Suggestions for implementing the Conciliar Declaration Nostra Aetate (No. 4) of January 1975. The Vatican II document points out that,
To tell the truth such relations as there have been between Jews and Christians have scarcely ever risen above the level of monologue. From now on, real dialogue must be established.
Dialogue in this respect is defined as a respectful interchange of equals sharing God's faith and recognizing the uniqueness of the faith commitment of the other person in dialogue. The Vatican Guidelines stressed this by pointing out that,
Dialogue supposes that each side wishes to know the other and wishes to increase and deepen its knowledge of the other. It constitutes a particularly suitable means of favoring a better mutual knowledge and specially in the case of dialogue between Jews and Christians, of probing the riches of one's own tradition. Dialogue demands respect for the other as he is; above all, respect for his faith and his religious convictions.
With this in mind our reading does not deal with Christianity's proclamation of its own theological claims. Rather, our aim is to clarify a terminology and concepts that have harmed and continue to harm the Jewish people through the teaching of contempt. This teaching denies Jews and Judaism a role in God's design after the coming of Jesus and his mission. Judaism, after the time of Jesus, has been presented as a vocation denied by God and history. The destruction of the Temple in the year 70 CE by the Romans was said to be the first sign of God's denial. Catechetical teaching, sermons, and other documents on Jews and Judaism denied any meaning to the Jewish covenantal alliance after Jesus. The Hebrew Bible, Judaism itself, was presented merely as a stage of preparation for the coming of Jesus. This theological approach was predominant not only in the Middle Ages, but up through the 19th century. For the Jewish people it meant social exclusion from cities and nations, the creation of ghettos, expulsion, the wearing of distinctive badges. Theological confrontations -whether in Tortosa, Barcelona or Paris-were held and Jewish scholars and rabbis were obligated to debate biblical texts that were considered to be hints of Jesus' coming as the promised Messiah.
Vatican II documents on Jews and Judaism reconsidered this past sad history and recommended clergy and educators to cleanse catechetical texts of negative characterization of Judaism. The CCC has contributed to this process of theological reckoning by stressing the following points in order to foster a Catholic understanding of Judaism and the Jewish people:
* The Hebrew Biblical Covenant has not been revoked.
* The Judaism of Jesus.
* The relationship of Christian liturgy to Jewish liturgy.
* Jews are not responsible collectively for the death of Jesus.
Catechetical Teaching and Judaism
The educational presentation of Jews and Judaism is the interest of many Vatican officials. Cardinal Willebrands expressed it in his study on "Catechetics and Judaism" presented at the 1977 Roman Bishops' Synod on "Catechetics in Our Time". Cardinal Willebrands said,
It seems important that, in a discussion on Catechetics, especially for young people and children, as is going on in this assembly of the Synod, the question of the image of Judaism and Catechetical teaching be raised. The reason is twofold: On the one hand, it is impossible - theologically and practically - to present Christianity without referring to Judaism, at least as it is found in the pages of the Old Testament, and also as it really was at the time of the New Testament. On the other hand, because the image of Judaism used to illustrate Christianity and Christian teaching is seldom exact, faithful and respectful of the theological and historical reality of Judaism.
... The Second Vatican Council, after a general presentation on the relations between Christianity and Judaism state, "All should see to it then that in Catechetical work and the preaching of the word of God, they teach nothing but that which conforms to the truth of the Gospel and the spirit of Christ". (Nostra Aetate No. 4)
Cardinal Willebrands' concern is partially reflected in the CCC. Some of the CCC's statements seem to convey concepts that were part of the traditional teaching of contempt. They might eventually confuse educators or future writers of Catechetical texts. The statements require a joint Catholic-Jewish reflection and are of concern for the Jewish reader.
Hebrew Bible and New Testament
In paragraph 121 the CCC points out that the Hebrew Bible, called the Old Testament, is part of Sacred Scripture and cannot be disregarded. It also points out that the books are divinely inspired and maintain a permanent value because "the Old Covenant has not been abolished". However, paragraph 122 says that the end of the old economy (of salvation) was "to prepare the coming of Christ, universal redeemer". This theological concept is open to negative understanding. It makes Judaism appear as a spirituality of temporary essence. It disregards the ongoing process of rabbinic interpretation that expounds the meaning of God's commands and their implementation in the existence of the individual and the community. In his message Jesus followed a similar methodology in translating the unique reality of the first century.
The CCC recommends typology, the study of symbolism, as a method of deciphering and understanding the meaning of the original text. Typology has been used by both Jews and Christians for centuries. It is a useful tool for the explanation of the text and its spirituality. However, there may be a dangerous tendency, for both faith commitments to use and abuse the text as a pretext to consider previous events as provisionary or preparatory. The CCC in paragraph 130 says,
Typology signifies, finally, the orientation towards the accomplishment of the definitive plan when "God will be all in all" (I Corinthians 15:28). The calling of the patriarchs and the Exodus from Egypt, for example, do not lose their proper value in God 's plan, because there are at the same time intermediate stages toward it.
Typology requires a joint examination to understand the respective spiritualities, a process of spiritual growth and not of confrontation. This is a task that should be part of the interfaith effort in going beyond the niceties of the "tea and sympathy" stage, to an in-depth reflection on the Jewish and Christian callings and both responses to God's distinct covenants.
The CCC points out the unity of the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament stressing that the so called Old Testament (paragraph 140),
Prepares the new one while this one fulfills the old one; both clarify themselves mutually; both are the real word of God.
In paragraph 134, the CCC recalls Hugo St. Victor's opinion who said that,
All of the divine scripture is one book, and that one book is Christ, because all of divine scripture speaks of Christ, and all of divine scripture is fulfilling Christ.
This emphasis upon the typological unity of the Scriptures and the accenting of the fact that the "Old Testament" prepares the way for the New Testament and the coming of Jesus gives us concern that this belittles the Hebrew Bible, making the text appear as incomplete. Ironically, the rabbis in the first centuries of the Common Era felt that the Hebrew Bible needed an expounding of its meaning by way of the oral tradition; they complemented it through the explanation of the Pharisees and the rabbinic teachers. The Hebrew teachers did not deny the original text but expounded the meaning of the scripture, in order to deepen the meaning of God's word. The CCC, on the contrary, seems to dispute the root where one branch, Christianity, grew up.
The first century was a time of unique spirituality. Different theological currents-Essenes, Pharisees and Sadducees and their own internal divisions contributed to the rich diversity of the period. Jesus' vocation, deeply rooted in that time, is no exception and requires the joint reflection of Christians and Jews who are respectful of each other's Scriptures. Both the Epistles to the Hebrews and to the Romans, as well as the Dead Sea and Rabbinic literature, need this joint study to enrich both spiritualities despite past history. The recognition and acceptance of the Hebrew Bible, the Sinai Covenant, does not mean leaving the Christian Scripture without a theological space. Otherwise, this would constitute an arrogant denial of the other; it would present a danger for religiously committed people, a prelude to an eventual theological confrontation.
The CCC tends to stress the temporary value of the Hebrew Bible. Paragraph 1334, for example, explains the meaning of bread and wine in the Hebrew biblical text, especially its relationship to the Passover redemption. However, the CCC notes that Jesus, by institutionalizing the Eucharist, "gave a new and definitive meaning to the blessing of bread and the cup of wine". Rabbinic theology and ritual, known by Jesus, yield a different opinion.
A similar pattern occurs in the explanation of Hebrew priesthood as portrayed in the Torah, the first five books of the Hebrew Bible. The CCC proclaims that this biblical priesthood "was incapable to achieve salvation" (paragraph 1540) and "only Jesus can achieve this priestly perfection". The question is whether the Hebrew biblical priesthood was really interested in salvation, or rather, in keeping the covenantal relationship, God-Israel, in the purity of the sacrificial offering and the centrality of God's unity.
Jesus and Israel
Paragraphs 574 through 576 explain the relationship of Jesus with Israel. Paragraph 574 generalizes saying that from the very beginning of Jesus' public ministry, "Pharisees and followers of Herodes, together with priests and scribes got together in order to make him fall (Mark 3:6)". The CCC following Mark, a text compiled years after the events, conveys the idea that Jesus, though following Jewish tradition, was being accused by the Jewish religious leadership of his day for being a blasphemer. It is still a question to establish "who were among the so-called "Jewish authorities"? A careful reading of the New Testament text, however, will show that Jesus in his criticism of the religious establishment, was following to a certain extent the practice of the times. Professor David Flusser of the Hebrew University stresses this point in his study, Jewish Sources in Early Christianity", though there are some reservations in considering Jesus as part of a specifically Pharisaic movement.
The strictures of the sages against this negative type of Pharisee were identical with those of Jesus against the Pharisees. Jesus said of them that they made broad their phylacteries and loved the chief seats in the synagogue in order to be seen and to be called Rabbi. Likewise, as we have mentioned, Jesus compared the Pharisees to sepulchers which are whitewashed on the outside but full of maggots inside. In Matthew 23, Jesus stated seven times, "Woe to you... Pharisees". In the Talmud seven types of Pharisees are listed, five of them hypocrites.
Jesus did, however, also have positive things to say about the Pharisees. He was aware that, in the world of the Pharisees, there was a certain hypocrisy, but at the same time, he was also aware of the positive aspects of the Pharisees; in other words there was an intentional ambiguity in his use of the word "Pharisees". He also stated "The scribes and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. All therefore whatsoever they bid you observe, that observe and do; but do not do after the works: For they say, and do not" (Matthew 23:2-3). Here he was making a clear distinction between the negative types of Pharisees and the rest of the Pharisees; he spoke of the Pharisees in general, but inserted into his speech, the polemic, we find in the Talmudic sources against the negative kinds of Pharisees.
Jesus emphasized that the ways of the sages should guide his disciples, since the Sages, as he stated, sat on the seat of Moses, and the rulings were binding on him and his disciples. Jesus also required of his disciples that their righteousness should exceed that of the Pharisees (Matthew 5.20). He saw in the Pharisees the heirs of Moses and therefore the true interpreters of.the Torah; but he also criticized them for not doing what they said.
The first century requires a more prudent approach, avoiding generalizations or repetitions of stereotypes. This is the case in the CCC's concept of "hypocritical casuistry" in describing rabbinic interpretation as quibbling. The rabbinic scholars were actually debating implementation of rituals and liturgical ordinances in order to realize in ritual and prayer the covenantal relationship with God. It was a free debate; no magisterium regulated their conclusions only the desire to live daily in God's grace. Jesus is not an exception in using the rabbinic methodology of sacredness. He was certainly critical of aspects of first century spirituality and followed the example of fellow teachers (as reflected in rabbinic sources). Any generalization reflects an opinion that relates to the period of compiling of the New Testament and not necessarily to the actual reality of Jesus' time.
Jesus and Pharisaism.
Jesus was closely related to First Century Judaism reflecting in its writings the religiosity of different schools, among them one or two lines of Pharisaic thought. However, the New Testament compilers did not make such distinctions and referred to the group as a whole. The CCC follows a similar line. The Pharisees appear in the document as one monolithic movement of leaders of "legal" sophistry.
A 1988 document of the American Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy of the National Conference of Catholic Bishops refers more clearly to the question of Pharisaism and Jesus' criticism. It is to be lamented that God's Mercy Endures Forever: Guidelines and the Presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching has not been taken into consideration in the. preparation of the CCC paragraphs on Jesus and the religious Jewish leadership of his day. The American Catholic document states that,
Jesus was perhaps closer to the Pharisees in his religious vision than to any other group in his time. The 1985 Notes suggests that this affinity with Pharisaism may be a reason for many of his apparent controversies with them... Many scholars are of the view that Jesus was not so much arguing against "The Pharisees" as a group, as he was condemning excesses of some Pharisees, excesses of a sort that can be found among some Christians as well... After the Church had distanced itself from Judaism, it tended to telescope the long historical process whereby the Gospels were set down generations after Jesus' death. Thus, certain controversies that may actually have taken place between church leaders and rabbis towards the end of the first century were "read back" into the life of Jesus...
This historical reality requires the attention of Catechists in order to avoid a teaching of contempt that not only denigrates Judaism but also essentially finds fault with Jesus' vocation.
Jesus and the Law
Paragraphs 577 through 582 are devoted to a consideration of Jesus and the law. The word "law" requires clarification for it has been long a source of misunderstanding and controversy between Christians and Jews. The interpreters of biblical teaching from the time of Ezra to the first centuries of the common era were concerned with God's Word and its implementation in the daily life of Israel. For that purpose religious leaders and scholars interpreted and projected the meaning of the word of God with their everyday lives. The interpreters' mission was to find ways of making the convenantal relationship-God's election of Israel-a reality in the life of the Chosen People, a continuous reality of God's love. This preoccupation resulted in a body of regulations and recommendations on how to lead a life of holiness. It is a methodology of sanctity that the rabbis labelled Halahah, currently erroneously translated as "law".
Halahah is a noun that is generally considered derived from the verb halah "to go". Halahah is a way of being and going, a manner of living and reliving God's revelation and commands. To be Halahic is to make God's presence a reality in all aspects of life: thanking God for restoring the soul at the moment of waking up in the morning; thanking God for the goodness of food or the command to study; thanking God for God's Presence. Halahah is the joy of shaping spiritual life by the experience of covenant guided by tradition.
Halahah is a constant process of actualization of God's revelation and its ethical content. Its exercise is a response to history. The Book of Exodus is a good example of Halakhic spirituality. Exodus is more than "a deliverance from the slavery of sin". The Exodus epic entails the experience of exile and return, from spiritual nothingness to national and individual meaningful experience. Egyptian slavery was not a punishment for the sins of the Hebrew people. It was imposed on them by their persecutors following the dictates of political ideology.
The Hebrew people left Egyptian slavery and took upon themselves the real obligation of freedom, to accept Mt. Sinai, the Ten Commandments and a life of purity and sacredness. The Sinai Covenant implies not only a relationship God- Israel, but also the acceptance of a content of revelation, moral and ethical regulations. The first 18 chapters of Exodus relate an epic of political liberation, the rest, 22 chapters, a discipline of religiosity. It is, as was previously defined, Halahah, a way to be religious. This concept is totally disregarded by the CCC that repeats the old accusation of casuistry in describing the spirituality of the rabbis. Paragraph 577 cites Matthew 5:17-19 describing Jesus as keeping Halahah rather than abolishing it. Jesus keeps the religious regulations of his time as a committed religious Jew. The CCC emphasizes Jesus' Halahic commitment, stressing his life of prayer and ritual. The text shows Jesus' disagreements with religious teachers (a common reality in the pluralistic exchange of his days). Jesus was opposed to any excessive hairsplitting but upheld a moral point of view. In the question of divorce he was as stringent as the School of Shammai (Matthew 5:32; 19:3-9), This rabbinic school considered the situation of the woman in contrast to the school of Hillel that exercised spiritual and ritual liberalism towards men.
Jesus and his interpretation of the Torah, Midrashic methodology, contributed to the understanding of God's commands in ways that were not necessarily different from the many-sided rabbinic approach. Halahic literature covers two areas of Jewish spirituality. One is Mishnah, the ritual and liturgical commentary describing the different aspects of religious life, prayer life, daily spirituality, human relations, and society's welfare. The Midrash is the literary existential explanation of the biblical text expounding the original meaning with ethical dimensions. Both methodologies were known by Jesus who was committed to the spirituality of the first century. The Midrash was used by New Testament writers as part of their Jewish commitment and the reality of the time. With the passing decades, Judaism and Christianity emerged as distinct religious paths. Unfortunately, they defined themselves all too often in terms of conflict. Constantine's decision to impose Christianity on the West marked a social and political separation, a triumphalism of power that is presently being reconsidered by Christians, a way to cure the pain of centuries and the need to rethink the first centuries.
This spirit appears in part in the section "Jesus and the Law". We feel that the CCC should have paid more attention to the complex Jewish religious reality of the first century, avoiding any repetition of the law-love confrontation; that is more of a medieval tradition.
Paragraph 593 states Jesus' love for the Temple and its rituals. However, the Temple is presented typologically as "representing his mystery", overlooking the value of the institution for Jewish and even Jewish-Christian spirituality of the time. This question and others require a joint Christian-Jewish examination in order to avoid misunderstandings that tend to enforce a teaching of contempt for Judaism.
The Process of Jesus and the Death of Jesus: The Rejection of Deicide
Paragraphs 595 through 598 are devoted to a consideration of the death of Jesus. The death of Jesus is described typologically as already hinted by the Hebrew Bible to appear as a mystery of universal redemption. According to the CCC, the death of Jesus fulfills, particularly, the prophecy of the Suffering Servant of Isaiah 53:7-8. Paragraph 595 points out that there was no unanimity among religious authorities in Jerusalem concerning Jesus. It also points out that some Pharisees like Nicodemus and Joseph Arimathea were "secret disciples" of Jesus. This will help to avoid any generalization that ends in condemning the Jewish people.
Paragraph 596 points out that the "Pharisees threatened excommunication to those who would follow him". This is relative in view of the divisions in the Pharisaic movement that have already been recognized by the CCC. This paragraph also points out that the Sanhedrin declared Jesus a blasphemer deserving death. The Greek may also be translated as "doomed to death". The CCC French edition follows the latter, while the Spanish translation says that the Sanhedrin condemned Jesus to death' (1). The CCC points out that the rabbinic authorities had no right to condemn anybody to death and so turned Jesus over to the Romans, accusing him of political revolt (following Luke 23:2). This statement requires more attention. The role of the Sanhedrin, its rights, and the Roman controls over it should have been taken into careful account when dealing with the period. It would have been very important for the CCC to remind readers that the chief priest was a Roman nominee and acted as a "quisling" criticized by the Jewish religious leadership and the people.
The CCC rejects the accusation of deicide by pointing out that "the Jews are not responsible collectively for the death of Jesus". This is the title preceding paragraph 597, followed by the concept introducing paragraph 598 that all sinners are the authors of Christ's passion. These reminders are an excellent way of educating people; they denounce an accusation that has provoked contempt for Judaism and persecutions of the Jewish people for centuries.
Final Thoughts
The present Jewish reading was done in a spirit of friendship and great concern for Catholic teaching and its presentation of Judaism, a presentation that will influence countless generations of Catholics and eventually the Catholic-Jewish relationship.
Pope John Paul II showed the way for this presentation in his speech to delegates at the Meeting of Representatives of Episcopal Conferences and other experts in Catholic-Jewish relations, Rome, 6 March 1982. His words could have served as an inspiration for the CCC editors when finalizing the document. Pope John Paul II said,
Yes, the clarity and affirmation of our Christian identity constitute an essential basis if we are to have real, productive, endurable ties with the Jewish people. In this sense, I am happy to note that you dedicate much effort in study and prayer together, the better to grasp and formulate the sometimes complex biblical and theological problems which have risen because of the very progress of Jewish-Christian dialogue. Work that is of poor quality or lacking in precision would be extremely detrimental to dialogue in this field. May God allow Christians and Jews really to come together, to arrive at an exchange in depth, founded on the respective identities, but never blurring it on either side, truly searching the will of God, the revealer. Such relations can and should contribute to a richer knowledge of our own roots and will certainly cast light on some aspects of the Christian identity just mentioned. Our common spiritual patrimony is very large.
To assess it carefully in itself and with the dual awareness of the faith and religious life of the Jewish people as they are professed and practised today, can greatly help us to understand certain aspects of the life of the Church. Such is the case of liturgy whose Jewish roots remain still to be examined in depth, and in any case should be better known and appreciated by our faithful. The same is true of the history of our institutions which, since the beginning of the Church, have been inspired by certain aspects of the synagogue community organisation. Finally our common spiritual patrimony is particularly important when we turn to our belief in one only God, good and merciful, who loves men [and women] and is loved by them (cf. Wis. 24:26), Lord of history and of the destinies of men, [and women], who is our Father and who chose Israel, "the good olive tree onto which have been grafted the wild olive branches, that of the Gentiles" (Nostra Aetate n. 4 cf. also Roms 11:17-24).
We feel that the CCC has partially followed the path criticized in Pope John Paul's remarks. The new document requires a joint Catholic-Jewish reflection on how to implement the CCC at pew level, focusing on the unique call of the interfaith dialogue. The present stage of the Christian-Jewish dialogue has taken advanced steps in the area of education, and especially in the teaching of the New Testament and the presentation of Jews and Judaism. However much more has to be done by both partners. On the Jewish side, we need a reflection on Christianity, its meaning and its mission in God's design. This is indeed a difficult enterprise because of centuries of Christian teaching of contempt, a teaching that nurtured anti-Semitism, a teaching that still appears in certain trends of Christian theology or theological documents. On the Christian side, the reckoning has to deal with this nearly classical teaching of contempt for Judaism. Both communities have to do much accounting: this joint effort will deepen their respective vocations.
Our time requires a joint reflection on both the Jewish and Christian missions, God's calls, especially now at the threshold of the twenty-first century, a new time of hope. The hope is for our joint witnessing, though respectful of our different commitments, to the world that hungers for God's covenant and word. Theological documents should help to further this prophetic aim, and we look forward to a Catholic-Jewish study of the CCC as part of the interfaith dialogue and its implementation in education, liturgy and preaching.
Conclusion
CCC positive points that will foster the Catholic understanding of Judaism:
* The Hebrew biblical Covenant has not been revoked.
* The Judaism of Jesus.
* Relationship of Christian liturgy to Jewish liturgy.
* Jews are not responsible collectively for the death of Jesus.
Points of concern for a joint Catholic-Jewish consideration:
* Presentation of the Hebrew Scriptures ("Old Testament") as the preparation of Jesus' vocation.
* Partial exposition of first-century Judaism, ignoring the spiritual richness and variety of that time.
* Use and abuse of typology portraying biblical episodes indicating Jesus as the fulfilment of God's promises to Israel.
* The need to study Jewish "law" or Halahah as part of the first-century history in order to avoid the confrontation "law-love" that has been part of the teaching of contempt, denigrating Jewish spirituality.
(1) The English edition uses "deserving" (ed.).
* Leon Klenicki is the director of the Department of Interfaith Affairs of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith, New York.
Bibliography
Pope John Paul II. Apostolic Exhortation, Catechesi Tradendae, On Catechesis in Our Time, Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1979.
Stepping Stones to Further Jewish-Christian Relations: An Unabridged Collection of Christian Documents. Compiled by Helga Croner. A Stimulus Book, 1977.
More Stepping Stones to Jewish-Christian Relations: An Unabridged Collection of Christian Documents 1975- 1983. Compiled by Helga Croner. A Stimulus Book, 1985.
Croner, Helga and Leon Klenicki, editors. Issues in the Jewish-Christian Dialogue: Jewish Perspectives on Covenant, Mission and Witness, Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, A Stimulus Book, 1979.
Fisher, Eugene J. and Leon Klenicki. In Our Time: The Flowering of Jewish-Catholic Dialogue. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, A Stimulus Book, 1990.
- "Root and Branches: Biblical Judaism, Rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity". Dubuque, IA:PACE 1987.
- Understanding the Jewish Experience, Washington: - ADL United States Catholic Conference, Department of Education, PACE 1980-1993.
-Flusser, David. Jewish Sources in Early Christianity, New York: Adama Books, 1987.
Lohfink, Nobert. The Covenant Never Revoked: Biblical Reflections on Jewish-Christian Relations. Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press, 1991.
National Conference of Catholic Bishops, God's Mercy Endures Forever: Guidelines on the Presentation of Jews and Judaism in Catholic Preaching. Washington DC: Bishops' Committee on the Liturgy, September 1988.
Within Context: Essays on Jews and Judaism in the New Testament, edited by David P. Efroymson, Eugene J. Fisher, and Leon Klenicki, Collegeville. MN: The Liturgical Press 1992.
CCC Editions:
Catecismo de la Iglesia Catolica, Madrid, Asociacion de Editores del Catecismo, 1992.
Catechisme de L'Eglise Catholique, Paris, Mame/Plon, 1992.
*Rabbi Leon Klenicki is director of the Department of Interfaith Affairs of the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith.
This essay was commissioned for the publication Professional Approaches for Christian Educators (PACE), a publication of Brown Publications - ROA Media, Dubuque IA, USA. It appeared in the April 1994 issue of Volume 23 of PACE. It is reprinted here with kind permission.
